EXPERT ACTIVITY IN THE AGE OF DIGITALIZATION: ON THE WAY TO NON-HIERARCHICAL COMMUNICATION?

L. V. Shipovalova

Abstract


The article examines the role of experts and digital technologies in organizing non-hierarchical public communication related to the discussion of common problems. Digital technologies provide openness, which can contribute to the formation of an active position of all participants in the interaction, and vice versa, support the passivity of following a certain expectation, opinion of the authorities or the majority. The diversity of digital platforms and expert opinions presented on them creates conditions for the representation of various positions, which can both preserve and strengthen political and value polarization, and serve as a condition for mediation of experts working for local political consensus. The potential impact of digital technologies becomes relevant both in hierarchical communication, where they are used as a vehicle for management, control and regulation by the authorities, and in non-hierarchical communication. In the latter case, technologies allow to specify the problem, identify unexpected third-party effects, and thus establish a flexible design of governance as a coordination of various actors.


Keywords


experts; digital technologies; design on governability; communication; activity and passivity; digital public consciousness

References


Гельман В.Я. Politics versus policy: технократические ловушки постсоветстких ре-

форм. // Полития. - 2017 - Т. 85. - № 2. - C. 32-59.

Сморгунов Л.В. Институционализация управляемости и проблема контроля в про-

странстве цифровых коммуникаций // Южно-российский журнал социальных наук. -

- Т. 20. - № 3. - C. 62-75.

Сунгуров А.Ю. Фабрики мысли и экспертное сообщество в Москве, Санкт-

Петербурге, Нижнем Новгороде и на Северном Кавказе // Политическая концептология:

журнал междисциплинарных исследований. - 2017. - № 2. - С. 115-137.

Томин Л.В. Социально-экономические конфликты в рамах капитализма платформ //

Конфликтология. - 2019. - № 3. - Т. 14. - C. 33-43.

Хабермас Ю. 2007 Онаученная политика и общественное мнение // Ю. Хабермас

техника и наука как «идеология». - М.: Праксис, 2007. - C. 136-166.

Электронный ресурс Активный гражданин URL: https://ag.mos.ru/poll/6512 (дата до-

ступа 1 мая 2020 г.)

Электронный ресурс. Сайт Мэрии Москвы URL:

https://www.mos.ru/news/item/63194073/ (дата доступа 1 мая 2020 г.)

Chandler D. Digital Governance in the Anthropocene: The Rise of the Correlational Machine.

// Digital Objects, Digital Subjects: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Capitalism, Labour

and Politics in the Age of Big Data. Eds. David Chandler, Christian Fuchs. University of

Westminster Press, 2019. - P. 23-42.

Esko T., Tuunainen J. Achieving the social impact of science: An analysis of public press

debate on urban development. // Science and Public Policy. - 2019. - Vol. 46. – № 3. - P. 404–

Gillespie T. The relevance of algorithms. // Gillespie T, Boczkowski P and Foot K (eds)

Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. - Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press, 2013. - P. 167-194.

Hofmann J., Katzenbach Ch., Gollatz K. Between coordination and regulation: Finding

the governance in Internet governance // New media and Society. - 2017. - Vol. 19. - № 9.

P.1406-1423.

Morozov E. “Don’t be evil” // The New Republic, July 13. http://www

.newrepublic.com/article/books/magazine/91916/google-schmidt-obama-gates-technocrats.

(дата доступа 1 мая 2020).

Nisbet N.C. Engaging in science policy controversies: insights from the US climate

change debate. // Bucchi, M., Trench, B. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication

of Science and Technology. - London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group,

- P. 173-185.

Pielke R. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. – New

York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. – 188 p.

Scheufele D.A. 2014. Science Communication as Political Communication. // PNAS. -

- Vol.111. - №. 4. P. 13585–13592.

Tomlinson J. Justice in the Digital State: Assessing the Next Revolution in Administrative

Justice. - Bristol University Press, Policy Press, 2019. – 114 p.

TRANSLIT

Gel'man V.Ja. Politics versus policy: tehnokraticheskie lovushki postsovetstkih reform. //

Politija. - 2017 - T. 85. - № 2. - C. 32-59.

Smorgunov L.V. Institucionalizacija upravljaemosti i problema kontrolja v prostranstve

cifrovyh kommunikacij // Juzhno-rossijskij zhurnal social'nyh nauk. - 2019. - T. 20. - № 3. - C.

-75.

Sungurov A.Ju. Fabriki mysli i jekspertnoe soobshhestvo v Moskve, Sankt-Peterburge,

Nizhnem Novgorode i na Severnom Kavkaze // Politicheskaja konceptologija: zhurnal

mezhdisciplinarnyh issledovanij. - 2017. - № 2. - S. 115-137.

Tomin L.V. Social'no-jekonomicheskie konflikty v ramah kapitalizma platform // Konfliktologija.

- 2019. - № 3. - T. 14. - C. 33-43.

Habermas Ju. 2007 Onauchennaja politika i obshhestvennoe mnenie // Ju. Habermas

tehnika i nauka kak «ideologija». - M.: Praksis, 2007. - C. 136-166.

Sajt Mjerii Moskvy. Web. URL: https://www.mos.ru/news/item/63194073/ (access date

05.2020). (In Russian).

Aktivnyj grazhdanin. Web URL: https://ag.mos.ru/poll/6512 (access date 1.05.2020). (In

Russian).

Chandler D. Digital Governance in the Anthropocene: The Rise of the Correlational Machine.

// Digital Objects, Digital Subjects: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Capitalism, Labour

and Politics in the Age of Big Data. Eds. David Chandler, Christian Fuchs. University of

Westminster Press, 2019. - P. 23-42.

Esko T., Tuunainen J. Achieving the social impact of science: An analysis of public press

debate on urban development. // Science and Public Policy. - 2019. - Vol. 46. – № 3. - P. 404–

Gillespie T. The relevance of algorithms. // Gillespie T, Boczkowski P and Foot K (eds)

Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. - Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press, 2013. - P. 167-194.

Hofmann J., Katzenbach Ch., Gollatz K. Between coordination and regulation: Finding

the governance in Internet governance // New media and Society. - 2017. - Vol. 19. - № 9.

P.1406-1423.

Morozov E. “Don’t be evil” // The New Republic, July 13.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books/magazine/91916/google-schmidt-obama-gatestechnocrats.

(дата доступа 1 мая 2020).

Nisbet N.C. Engaging in science policy controversies: insights from the US climate

change debate. // Bucchi, M., Trench, B. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication

of Science and Technology. - London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group,

- P. 173-185.

Pielke R. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. – New

York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. – 188 p.

Scheufele D.A. 2014. Science Communication as Political Communication. // PNAS. -

- Vol.111. - №. 4. P. 13585–13592.

Tomlinson J. Justice in the Digital State: Assessing the Next Revolution in Administrative

Justice. - Bristol University Press, Policy Press, 2019. – 114 p.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.